CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.

345 ITR 135High Court2012#914 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The High Court explains the scope and conditions for exercising revisional power under Section 263, emphasizing that an assessment order can be revised only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears · Nagesh Knitwears · Section 263 · revisional power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · Malabar Industrial · scope of revision · PCIT/CIT powers · assessment order revision

Also reported as

254 CTR 11322 Taxmann.com 309210 Taxmann 145

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 144BSection 144Section 10(20)Section 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 10(2)section 43asection 36(1)(viii)malabar industriallack of enquiryinfrastructure facilityassessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263(1)section 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.

Ms. Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Ring Road, Surat vs. PCIT, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…the Act. Hence, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Ld.PCIT also relied on the decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC); CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwear’s P. Ltd. and Others (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT (197) 99 ITR 375 (Del). The Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation-2(a) of Section 263, inserted with effect from 01.06.2015, wherein the order of AO shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, if, in the opinion of the Ld.PCIT, the order is passed without making e…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…nal powers u/s 263 of the Act which cannot be alleged as invalid assumption of jurisdiction or bad in law and we confirm the same." 6.6 Section 263 has been elucidated and explained in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In the said decision, reference was also made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited versus CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Private Limited versus Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO versus DG Housing Projects Limited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been observed in Nage…

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 541/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.541/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, 444, Royal Arcade, Opp. Sarthana Zoo, Surat Varachha Road, Near Sarthana Jakatnaka, Surat – 395006, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabce0313Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…of section 263 of the Act and referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cases of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Pavilee Projects Pvt. Ltd., 149 taxman.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. Nagesh Neatwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), ITO vs. D. G. Housing Projcts Ltd., (ITA No.179/2011 – Delhi HC) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) and held that the order passed by the AO on 18.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Hence, the order was set aside with a direction to the…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…come to a definite finding that the expenditure in question was a capital expenditure in the proceedings under section 263, in our opinion, the order of the assessing officer could not be held to be erroneous." 18.In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- "Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusio…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Gurugram vs. M/S Maharishi Markandeshwar University Trust

ITA/41/2021HC Punjab & Haryana24 Sept 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 11(1)(a)Section 263

…g and Advertising Company Limited (2012) 341 ITR 180; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (2011) 332 ITR 167; Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nagesh Knitwears (P) Limited (2012) 345 ITR 135; ITA No. 116 of 2021- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-01, New Delhi vs M/s Brahma Centre Development Private Limited decided on 05.07.2021; judgments of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Deepak Mittal (2010) 324 ITR 411; and ITA No. 205 of 2019 - The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana vs M/s Kanin (India) decided o…

Huhtamaki India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 6, Mumbai

ITA 2668/MUM/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai Pan: Aaact0086E Appellant Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-6, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shrisolgy Jose T. Kottaram(Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/07/2024 Order Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M: Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of Thelearned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mumbai-6 (For Brevity, ‘Ld.Pcit') Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act'), For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order21.03.2024.The Impugned Order Was Emanated From The Order Of The National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (In Short, ‘The A.O.') Passed Under Section 143(3)Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Date Of Order19/04/2021. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIAMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α No.2668/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Huhtamaki India Limited A-802, Cresenzo, C-38/39 G Block, Brandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai PAN: AAACT0086E APPELLANT VS Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-6, Mumbai 5th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahrishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Tiwari Respondent by : ShriSolgy Jose T. Kottaram(CIT DR) Date of hearing : 22/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 29/07/2024 ORDER PER ANIKESH B…

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…hich has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 11. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusi…

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 13. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income ta…

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 13. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income ta…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 7517/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…urt/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.6081, 6913, 5654 & 7517/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6913/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…urt/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.6081, 6913, 5654 & 7517/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6081/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…urt/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.6081, 6913, 5654 & 7517/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 5654/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ptc India Financial Services Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltd., Special Range-7, Telephone Exchange Building, New Delhi 8, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2015-16 With Assessment Year: 2016-17 Addl. Cit, Vs. Ptc India Financial Services Special Range-7, Ltd., New Delhi 2Nd Floor, Nbcc Tower, 15, Bikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066 Pan :Aaecp0501C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…urt/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. 10 | P a g e ITA Nos.6081, 6913, 5654 & 7517/Del/2019 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7433/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…No. 3 of 2010 cannot possibly override the existing decisions of the Supreme Court/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 7273/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…No. 3 of 2010 cannot possibly override the existing decisions of the Supreme Court/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2175/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…No. 3 of 2010 cannot possibly override the existing decisions of the Supreme Court/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

M/S. Ptc India Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

ITA 2162/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 36(1)(viii)Section 37

…No. 3 of 2010 cannot possibly override the existing decisions of the Supreme Court/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom)." (Emphasis supplied) • Hon'ble ITAT in case of Reliance Communications Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ I.T.A. No. 671/Mum/2013) As per the facts of the case, the assessee company had raised funds to the tune of Rs. 6485 crores by way of foreign currency convertible bonds…

Addl. CIT-(08), New Delhi vs. Sopra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue thus is dismissed

ITA 1175/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 145

…on No. 3 of 2010 cannot possibly override the existing decisions of the Supreme Court/ High Court on similar issues. The legal position in this regard has been explained in Ratan Melting (supra) and has been reiterated in CIT t NageshKnitwears (P) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) and CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd., (2012) 254 CTR 113 (Bom).” 5.2.7.1 It is also seen from the submissions that a Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Bank of Bahrain has discussed the issue in detail in the said order. The Special Bench has clearly held that loss arising on unmatured derivative contracts is allowable to the…

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s AlliedPhotographics Vs. Pr.CIT-1, India Ltd., 3rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. : AABCA2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.AR Respondent by : Ms.Smiti Samant. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order o…

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…hich has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 12. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusi…